It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
according to her pharmacist, there was not enough THC in her blood to impair her ability to drive
Under Kansas law, it is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail, to operate a motor vehicle while "under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle
Kastner could be described as a "habitual user" of THC, but only because her doctor prescribed it to help her tolerate the side effects of chemotherapy. According to a summary of the Kansas DUI law from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, habitual users of a drug with any amount of it in their systems are automatically deemed to be impaired, although there is no logical or scientific basis for that "zero tolerance" rule.
originally posted by: JAY1980
Have these police never heard of HIPPA?
The doctor prescribed her medicine outside that the authorities have no say on how this individual medicates.
Personally I feel they violated her health rights by making her submit to a test for something she had been authorized to use.
originally posted by: tigertatzen
She was most definitely in violation of the law in this case. There's no way around that..
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: TinySickTears
Lets also not forget that every law maker turns a blind eye to politicians and other law makers having coke and whore parties where the next monday they are writing and voting on laws while still under the influence.
Lets also ignore that the biggest drug dealer in the world is our government through drug companies or through pop up cartels selling illegal drugs to fund black projects....
Lets forget that evidence lockers lose drugs from precincts all across the country. Forget that many have had a cop take our pot at least once in our lives to gift it to a buddy or a girl friend....or smoke it himself.
Lets pretend this woman deserves this.
originally posted by: UKTruth
She broke the law. Having cancer does not exempt a person from the law.
It is her responsibility to make sure she is fit to drive, no one else.
If her medication makes her unfit to drive she should not be driving.
Pretty simple really.
she was in an at fault car accident where she was the only one hauled off to the hospital with an airbag caused brain bleed, her blood was taken and she had a trace of Marinol in her system which she hadn't taken for a couple weeks. But the base ingredient is THC that doesn't get out of your blood for 30 days.
originally posted by: TinySickTears
originally posted by: tigertatzen
She was most definitely in violation of the law in this case. There's no way around that..
can you tell me how please?
i posted links to explain why she was not.
first of all how can she be in violation when the medicine she was taking does not get her high?
you admitted in your first post that you really dont know much about marinol.
i do know about it.
ive taken it.
i posted links explaining about marinol.
but its just cut and dry right?
even though she was not high and had a legal prescription. in your opinion having thc in her system is enough to be charged?
curious about this
and like you said
yeah you can refuse but that just makes things worse.
that seems to be the tone this 'free' country is going in.
sure you are 'free' to do it but if you do # gets worse. how is that free
originally posted by: TinySickTears
another source
reason.com...
according to her pharmacist, there was not enough THC in her blood to impair her ability to drive
i know the pharmacist is not a doc but they do know just a little about the effects of prescription drugs and how they cause a person to react
Under Kansas law, it is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail, to operate a motor vehicle while "under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle
to a degree that it renders a person incapable of safely driving a vehicle
Kastner could be described as a "habitual user" of THC, but only because her doctor prescribed it to help her tolerate the side effects of chemotherapy. According to a summary of the Kansas DUI law from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, habitual users of a drug with any amount of it in their systems are automatically deemed to be impaired, although there is no logical or scientific basis for that "zero tolerance" rule.
no scientific base to the zero tolerance rule......
like i have been saying in like 4 threads. things are not always black and white....the cops should be able to use their brains and evaluate the situation.
is she a habitual user of marinol? yes
was she under the influence? no
if john do habitual user gets pulled over and he is blazing and clearly under the influence then yeah...pop him with the dui
this is an example of a habitual user of marinol that was not under the influence. great chance for the law to use their brains and evaluate
i dont know why i am keeping on with this because you and others clearly do not and will not get it
i know the pharmacist is not a doc but they do know just a little about the effects of prescription drugs and how they cause a person to react
originally posted by: tigertatzen
The medicine itself typically does not contain enough THC to cause euphoria in most people. However, it can in certain people. Enough people in fact, that the manufacturer was required to put a warning not to drive while taking it on the medication bottle.
That is how she broke the law. .
originally posted by: tigertatzen
originally posted by: TinySickTears
originally posted by: tigertatzen
She was most definitely in violation of the law in this case. There's no way around that..
can you tell me how please?
i posted links to explain why she was not.
first of all how can she be in violation when the medicine she was taking does not get her high?
you admitted in your first post that you really dont know much about marinol.
i do know about it.
ive taken it.
i posted links explaining about marinol.
but its just cut and dry right?
even though she was not high and had a legal prescription. in your opinion having thc in her system is enough to be charged?
curious about this
and like you said
yeah you can refuse but that just makes things worse.
that seems to be the tone this 'free' country is going in.
sure you are 'free' to do it but if you do # gets worse. how is that free
The medicine itself typically does not contain enough THC to cause euphoria in most people. However, it can in certain people. Enough people in fact, that the manufacturer was required to put a warning not to drive while taking it on the medication bottle.
That is how she broke the law. Was it bullsh!t ? I think so. But the law does not care what I or you think. And that's what I was talking about.
I think I was pretty clear that I don't personally think she should have been charged. In fact, I don't think she should have been charged even if there actually was enough in her system.
In my opinion, no one should. Like I said, anyone can grow it in their own backyard. But they don't want us having it because then we won't want their poison medicine anymore.
What I was talking about was the reason why they were able to arrest her. That warning on that bottle was placed there for exactly that reason. Entrapment. So no, in that sense, we're not free.
originally posted by: TinySickTears
originally posted by: tigertatzen
The medicine itself typically does not contain enough THC to cause euphoria in most people. However, it can in certain people. Enough people in fact, that the manufacturer was required to put a warning not to drive while taking it on the medication bottle.
That is how she broke the law. .
except as i posted in this thread that is not what the warning says.
i posted a link about it and a picture of it.
originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: tigertatzen
not trying to pick an argument i just dont want false info posted.
from the link you posted and like i have been saying this whole time
Do not drive a car, operate machinery, or engage in any hazardous activity until you know how this medication affects you and until you are sure you can perform such tasks safely
that is what it says in plain english on your link...
again, i just want the right info out there when it comes to this because people believing the wrong info is why this woman is in trouble and why this # is so demonized and im tired of it
originally posted by: TinySickTears
originally posted by: UKTruth
She broke the law. Having cancer does not exempt a person from the law.
It is her responsibility to make sure she is fit to drive, no one else.
If her medication makes her unfit to drive she should not be driving.
Pretty simple really.
apparently you did not read the thread
she was not unfit to drive.
thc in your system does not mean you are unfit to drive.
figures though.
youre one of those cut and dry, black and white types.
its not always that simple